women The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

[Jerry]

Skirt, as used in the Bible, means the edge of a garment - not a skirt like women wear today.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary states this about Breeches:

A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers.

Also, the word is related to britches - which is also pants. Even (for the sake of the argument) it referred to undergarments - they were undergarments ONLY certain men were to wear, not women. And if this is what turned into britches, trowsers, pants (as history does show), then they are men's clothing, according to the Bible and therefore an abomination for women to wear.

Again, God is not going to have a unisex garment - such as robes - for everyone to wear (and only SOME PEOPLE wore robes in the Bible - not like in a supposed Biblical movie where everyone is wearing them), and then command this:

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

And, again, for the sake of the argument, if there was some unisex garment that was created by mankind to wear somewhere along the way, that would contradict God's Word (the word abomination signifies a greater sin against God than other sins, and those sins that are abominable to Him were never done away with in the sense that those commands no longer apply today), AND therefore should be avoided by children of God today - or else those that ARE blurring those lines and wearing unisex clothing or clothing intended originally for the opposite gender are committing an abomination today.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On 6/6/2022 at 1:21 PM, Jerry said:

Skirt, as used in the Bible, means the edge of a garment - not a skirt like women wear today.

"Skirt," according to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, means --

1.  "The lower and loose part of a coat or other garment; the part below the waist; as the skirt of a coat or mantle. 1 Samuel 15:17"
2.  "The edge of any part of dress."
3.  "Border; edge; margin; extreme part; as the skirt of a forest; the skirt of a town."
4.  "A woman's garment like a petticoat."
5.  "The diaphragm or midriff in animals.

Of these definitions three of them relate to a type or part of clothing -- #1, #2, & #3.  In relation to a robe type garment, definition #1 & #2 would have application.  Now, all of the references to a "skirt" in the Old Testament are as follows:

Deuteronomy 22:30 -- "A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt." (Man's wear)

Deuteronomy 27:20 -- "Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen." (Man's wear)

Ruth 3:9 -- "And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." (Man's wear)

1 Samuel 15:27 -- "And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent." (Man's wear)

1 Samuel 24:4-5 -- "And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily. And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt." (Man's wear)

1 Samuel 24:11 -- "Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it." (Man's wear)

Psalm 133:2 -- "It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments." (High Priest's wear, fashioned by God Himself)

Jeremiah 2:34 -- "Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)

Jeremiah 13:22 -- "And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)

Jeremiah 13:26 -- "Therefore will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)

Lamentations 1:9 -- "Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)

Ezekiel 5:3 -- "Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts." (Man's wear, that of the prophet himself)

Ezekial 16:8 -- "Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine." (God's wear, as this is a portrayal of God Himself)

Nahum 3:5 -- "Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the city of Nineveh is represented as a woman)

Haggai 2:12 -- "If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No." (Priest's wear)

Zechariah 8:23 -- "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." (Man's wear, concerning Jewish men during the Millennial Kingdom of our Lord)

Now, as per each context, it does not seem accurate to claim that in every one of these cases the word "skirt(s)" simply means the hem or fringe.  This may be accurate for some of the above cases, but it does not at all seem accurate for all of the above cases.  Furthermore, by definition any reference to robe-wear implies skirt-wear, since a robe includes an open bottomed portion below the waist (as per the 1828 Webster's meaning #1 above, which he specifically applied to the passage in 1 Samuel 15).  So, how many references to robe-wear are there in the Holy Scriptures; and who all is portrayed as wearing a robe?  Because every reference to robe-wear is by definition and implication also a reference to skirt-wear.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

[SureWord]

The word "skirt" is derived from an old German word that does refer to the lower edge or border of a woman's dress. It's also why the word sometimes can be used like "Stop skirting around your responsibilities" or "Outskirts of the city" which suggests the edge.

The word also seems to be etymologically related to the root word used for "shirt" and "tunic".

Of course, the word has changed overtime to refer to the whole garment.

 

[rancher824]

In 2 Samuel 6 we find David leaping and dancing before the Lord. He comes home to a very unhappy wife, Michal. She tells him he was shamelessly uncovering himself before the maidens as one of the vain fellows. Now if most men were wearing pants or breeches, how was he uncovering himself? 
in judges 3:16 Ehud strapped a 1 cubit knife under his clothes on his thigh. Now if he was wearing pants and a shirt this would either be impossible to get to, or obvious to all around him. But if he had a robe with a skirt, it would work out nicely. 
you read the description of the garments of Aaron where the linen breeches are mentioned, and you also find a robe. The robe would have hang down to around his knees. So with him climbing the steps, he needed something under the robe for modesty. The breeches were in fact under garments. Now Bro Jerry, if you truly believe these could be undergarments that over time became pants ( I think that’s what you were saying) and that they pertain to men as pants do today, does this also mean you do not believe in women wearing undergarments that would in any way resemble these? I don’t mean this as a vulgar question, but that is the logical conclusion. Also, can you give me historical writings that agree that they did not all wear robes? I know I have heard stories of a Arab man getting something spilt on his robe and someone offering him a clean robe, but he was offended that they offered him a women’s robe. I had a man once tell me that even Wikipedia said that Jews wore pants. I went to the article he provided and a little ways down it said that (and this is not word for word as I don’t want to take the time to look it up) for the last 100 years the Jews have dressed much like the western world, but before that they dressed much like the Bedouin Arabs. Trying to put our culture onto the Jews of old is arrogant. And as has been pointed out, our culture has changed a lot in recent years. 

[SureWord]

1 hour ago, rancher824 said:

In 2 Samuel 6 we find David leaping and dancing before the Lord. He comes home to a very unhappy wife, Michal. She tells him he was shamelessly uncovering himself before the maidens as one of the vain fellows. Now if most men were wearing pants or breeches, how was he uncovering himself? 
in judges 3:16 Ehud strapped a 1 cubit knife under his clothes on his thigh. Now if he was wearing pants and a shirt this would either be impossible to get to, or obvious to all around him. But if he had a robe with a skirt, it would work out nicely. 
you read the description of the garments of Aaron where the linen breeches are mentioned, and you also find a robe. The robe would have hang down to around his knees. So with him climbing the steps, he needed something under the robe for modesty. The breeches were in fact under garments. Now Bro Jerry, if you truly believe these could be undergarments that over time became pants ( I think that’s what you were saying) and that they pertain to men as pants do today, does this also mean you do not believe in women wearing undergarments that would in any way resemble these? I don’t mean this as a vulgar question, but that is the logical conclusion. Also, can you give me historical writings that agree that they did not all wear robes? I know I have heard stories of a Arab man getting something spilt on his robe and someone offering him a clean robe, but he was offended that they offered him a women’s robe. I had a man once tell me that even Wikipedia said that Jews wore pants. I went to the article he provided and a little ways down it said that (and this is not word for word as I don’t want to take the time to look it up) for the last 100 years the Jews have dressed much like the western world, but before that they dressed much like the Bedouin Arabs. Trying to put our culture onto the Jews of old is arrogant. And as has been pointed out, our culture has changed a lot in recent years. 

Not to mention Peter mentioning just a loincloth which was probably the only piece of clothing the men wore working in the field. 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by SureWord

[Pastor Scott Markle]

58 minutes ago, SureWord said:

The word "skirt" is derived from an old German word that does refer to the lower edge or border of a woman's dress. It's also why the word sometimes can be used like "Stop skirting around your responsibilities" or "Outskirts of the city" which suggests the edge.

The word also seems to be etymologically related to the root word used for "shirt" and "tunic".

Actually, the word "skirt" is derived etymologically from the Old Norse word "skyrt," which means "shirt."  Following etymologically back from the Old Norse, we have the following:

Old Norse - skyrt, meaning "shirt"
back to Middle Low German - shorte
back to Old Saxon - skurtia
back to Proto-Germanic - skurtijo, meaning "skirt, apron"
back to Proto-Germanic - skurtaz, meaning "lacking, deficient, short."

Indeed, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary presents the following etymological information:

"Sw. skiorta, a shift or close garment; Dan. skiort, a petticoat; skiorte, a shirt, a shift. These words seem to be from the root of short, from cutting off."

For the sense of "border, edge" (such as in "outskirts," etc.), such a usage we find first recorded in the late 15th century.

However, the most relevant word here is the Hebrew word from which the English is translated, which is the Hebrew word "kanaph."  In its most basic verb form, the Hebrew carries the meaning "to cover, to cover over."  In its noun form, it carries two ideas from this basic verb meaning -- 1. The wing or wings (dual) of a bird; 2. The skirt (edge or extremity) of a garment.  Yet in both of these ideas, the Hebrew always retains the sense of "covering," which is why we find some Biblical contexts wherein the word "skirt" may involve only the hem or fringe, but others wherein the word "skirt" more necessarily encompasses the fullness of the lower portion of the robe-garment.

[Jerry]

This is not a hill I would die on or a hobby horse I am riding (not saying anyone here is saying or implying anything like that - I don't have any specific reason to die-hard debate my opinion/beliefs in this area, beyond stating them in general as the subject comes up). I just offered my opinion on what I had studied out around 20-22 years ago.

But more important than my personal position on this issue is this:

IF the robes were worn by both sexes, where is the distinction that God commands and that is an abomination to Him if it is crossed? Regardless of where we all stand on this, BIBLICALLY, whatever clothing they DID wear 3500 years ago and afterwards was distinct enough for God to say to the men, "Don't wear that - that is a women's garment," and vice versa. However, most people teaching that all wore robes in Bible times do not teach any distinction between them - and any portrayal of robes in tv shows and movies and plays all show basically both sexes as wearing the same general garment. Why would God call it an abomination, stating very clearly it was against Him, and then there not be a CLEAR distinction? There had to be one, even if many cannot see it or understand it today.

[heartstrings]

1 hour ago, Jerry said:

This is not a hill I would die on or a hobby horse I am riding (not saying anyone here is saying or implying anything like that - I don't have any specific reason to die-hard debate my opinion/beliefs in this area, beyond stating them in general as the subject comes up). I just offered my opinion on what I had studied out around 20-22 years ago.

But more important than my personal position on this issue is this:

IF the robes were worn by both sexes, where is the distinction that God commands and that is an abomination to Him if it is crossed? Regardless of where we all stand on this, BIBLICALLY, whatever clothing they DID wear 3500 years ago and afterwards was distinct enough for God to say to the men, "Don't wear that - that is a women's garment," and vice versa. However, most people teaching that all wore robes in Bible times do not teach any distinction between them - and any portrayal of robes in tv shows and movies and plays all show basically both sexes as wearing the same general garment. Why would God call it an abomination, stating very clearly it was against Him, and then there not be a CLEAR distinction? There had to be one, even if many cannot see it or understand it today.

Maybe all the men wore blue robes and the ladies wore pink? Probably not but I'm with you; there was some kind of distinction. I've seen pictures of "primitive" peoples all over the world and in virtually every one there is a marked distinction between ladies and men's clothes. I mean, for example an Eskimo man's parka looked like a man's parka and visa versa. (I know they're called Inuit now). I guess that would fit in with the verse about people "without the law doing the things of the law by nature"(paraphrased). It's just "natural" for a guy to want to wear guy clothes...or should be. Ok, I ran that rabbit a ways....

[Jim_Alaska]

What if Deut. 22.5 is not referring strictly to clothing at all? Note the wording and the difference in such, as they pertain to both men and women. Particularly the differences.

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man”   

“neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:“

A "garment", is certainly clothing, but can we say with certainty that "that which pertaieith to a man" is also clothing?

 

[Jerry]

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I would say based on the Hebrew parallel that the same thing is being said for both sides - not to wear the garments pertaining to the other sex.

Not trying to be argumentative, but if you think it has another meaning, it is up to you to state it and show any proof for it. Otherwise, I think the normal/regular interpretation will still stand. But, even if it applies to other things AS WELL, it still certainly directly applies to clothing. God certainly is not saying it is an abomination for a man to wear women's clothing, but it is okay for a women to wear man's clothing.

[heartstrings]

18 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I would say based on the Hebrew parallel that the same thing is being said for both sides - not to wear the garments pertaining to the other sex.

Not trying to be argumentative, but if you think it has another meaning, it is up to you to state it and show any proof for it. Otherwise, I think the normal/regular interpretation will still stand. But, even if it applies to other things AS WELL, it still certainly directly applies to clothing. God certainly is not saying it is an abomination for a man to wear women's clothing, but it is okay for a women to wear man's clothing.

Here's a verse which was always intriguing to me:

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

If "nature itself" teaches us things like this are a shame, pertaining to how the respective sexes should look, why wouldn't seeing some guy in a pink dress do the same? God made us male and female: we should look like, dress like,  and act like the sex we belong to. To do otherwise is just confusion.

[rancher824]

As I mentioned in the last post, the Arab man was offended that someone offered him a women’s robe. There are/were differences. Things can be very similar while having very certain differences. And they may be a difference that someone from another culture would not see. In the instance with Arab I mentioned, the one telling about it said he could not tell the difference. It was stated by one poster a few pages back (don’t remember her name) that she worked making pants and that there were different cuts depending if it was women’s or men’s. It is obvious the high priest wore a robe. In Revelation it says the saints are seen in white robes. How is it hard to believe robes were the normal wear. We cannot say pants are what we should wear, so they wore pants, so we know we should wear pants. That is circular. It is a common belief that Jews wore robes or Tunics which are very much the same. With that being the common belief, how can we say I don’t want it to be because it disagrees with what I think, so you should accept it. As for it being a hill to die on, it is a very important part of the discussion. If the men wore robes, then we have to ask when it became wrong for men to wear them. What and when culture can change the rules. How many need to accept the change before it is acceptable. How long it has to have changed before being acceptable. 

[heartstrings]

18 minutes ago, rancher824 said:

As I mentioned in the last post, the Arab man was offended that someone offered him a women’s robe. There are/were differences. Things can be very similar while having very certain differences. And they may be a difference that someone from another culture would not see. In the instance with Arab I mentioned, the one telling about it said he could not tell the difference. It was stated by one poster a few pages back (don’t remember her name) that she worked making pants and that there were different cuts depending if it was women’s or men’s. It is obvious the high priest wore a robe. In Revelation it says the saints are seen in white robes. How is it hard to believe robes were the normal wear. We cannot say pants are what we should wear, so they wore pants, so we know we should wear pants. That is circular. It is a common belief that Jews wore robes or Tunics which are very much the same. With that being the common belief, how can we say I don’t want it to be because it disagrees with what I think, so you should accept it. As for it being a hill to die on, it is a very important part of the discussion. If the men wore robes, then we have to ask when it became wrong for men to wear them. What and when culture can change the rules. How many need to accept the change before it is acceptable. How long it has to have changed before being acceptable. 

I think if all the men wore blue robes and the ladies wore pink, polka dotted, or flowery lacy ones, it would solve two problems at once: we would all be wearing what "pertaineth" to our respective sex, and it would be far more decent. Although that could pose a whole new set of problems comfort-wise I guess.

 

[Jerry]

3 hours ago, rancher824 said:

It is obvious the high priest wore a robe. In Revelation it says the saints are seen in white robes. How is it hard to believe robes were the normal wear. We cannot say pants are what we should wear, so they wore pants, so we know we should wear pants. That is circular. It is a common belief that Jews wore robes or Tunics which are very much the same.

Maybe I worded what I was saying awkwardly, my point was there was no way it was unisex robes, like pictured in tv and movies (and robes are mentioned here and there in various places in the Bible, not stated as the main clothing everyone wore in every Bible generation).

I am not saying I know the definitive answer as to what the differences were (or that all of the differences could be determined today about clothing worn in Bible times) - but I think it was more than colour differences, otherwise it would not have been an abominable action to God when the other sex wore them.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Jerry

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Jerry said:

(and robes are mentioned here and there in various places in the Bible, not stated as the main clothing everyone wore in every Bible generation).

Well, skirt-wear is specifically referenced 19 times throughout the Old Testament Scriptures (none specifically referenced in the New Testament); and robe-wear is specifically referenced 37 times throughout the Old and New Testament Scriptures (from Exodus to Revelation).  Whereas "breeches" (specifically as underwear, not outerwear) is referenced only 5 times in the Old Testament Scriptures.  Can you provide any specific reference to pants-wear as outerwear anywhere in the Holy Scriptures?  If so, how many can you provide?  If not, what Biblical evidence could you provide to indicate that robe-wear is not "the main clothing everyone wore in every Bible generation"?  (The problem that I am having here is that things are being stated that do not line up with what is actually found throughout Scripture.)

(Note: Robe-wear is even revealed in Scripture as the attire of eternity.)